Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 149 (ALL)

Banaras Hindu University v. Alok Kumar

2023-01-16

MANOJ MISRA, VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : MANOJ MISRA, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 17 of 2023 and Special Appeal No. 18 of 2023 are against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar whereas Special Appeal No. 19 of 2023 is against the judgment and order of the same date in Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan as infructuous in light of the judgment and order in Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these three appeals, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order. FACTS 2. Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 was filed by Dr. Alok Kumar (the respondent) seeking following reliefs: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari after calling the relevant records from the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi quashing the entire short listing qua petitioner’s post which has been done by applying the shortlisting guidelines which became effective from 02.11.2010. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-University and its authorities to conduct the entire selection as per the University Grants Commission guidelines, regulations and the eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of short-listing. (iii) Pass such other and further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost.” 3. The case of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) in a nutshell was that the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for short ‘University’) issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts including that of Assistant Professor in Sociology (Post Code 3712). The last date for receipt of application form to participate in the selection process was 21.09.2010. The advertisement specified that: “Mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview. More stringent criteria may be applied for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview. Applicants having higher qualification and merit will be given preference. The last date for receipt of application form to participate in the selection process was 21.09.2010. The advertisement specified that: “Mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview. More stringent criteria may be applied for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview. Applicants having higher qualification and merit will be given preference. For teaching positions short-listing shall be done as per guidelines approved by Executive Council of the University.” General Instruction No. 2 of the advertisement stated as follows: “Eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other shortlisting criteria shall be considered as on the last date of the receipt for application.” 4. According to the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) a shortlisting guidelines, dated 10.04.2010, approved by Executive Council of the University existed but, instead of applying those guidelines, revised guidelines framed pursuant to the resolution dated 02.11.2010 of the Executive Council, made effective from 02.11.2010, were used to shortlist 12 out of more than 200 applicants to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology. As the writ petitioner was not among those shortlisted, Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 was filed. The grievance of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) was that the short-listing guidelines made applicable from 02.11.2010 should not have been pressed into service as the last date for receipt of the application, as per the advertisement, was 21.09.2010, whereas the revised shortlisting guidelines became effective from 02.11.2010, therefore, in view of General Instruction No. 2, any shortlisting criteria adopted later, could not have been applied. 5. In Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 on 28.01.2011 an interim order was passed, which is reproduced below: “Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Awasthi appearing for the petitioner submit that though the petitioner is eligible with Ph.D as essential qualification, the additional qualifications of NET/SLET have been given 20 marks in the guidelines for shortlisting made effective from 2.11.2010, whereas the last date of receipt of applications in the advertisement was 21.9.2010. He states that under the General Instructions to the Candidates: (item no. 2) eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other shortlisting criteria was required to be considered as on the last date of the receipt of the application. The requirement of NET/SLET has been thus impliedly introduced subsequently causing discrimination between the eligible candidates. He states that under the General Instructions to the Candidates: (item no. 2) eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other shortlisting criteria was required to be considered as on the last date of the receipt of the application. The requirement of NET/SLET has been thus impliedly introduced subsequently causing discrimination between the eligible candidates. The candidates having Ph.D/D.Phil along with NET/SLET will be given 20 additional marks in shortlisting, whereas a candidate fully eligible such as petitioner having Ph.D degree will be deprived of additional marks. An objection has been taken by Shri K.S. Chauhan appearing for the University that the same advertisement provides that mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview and that more stringent criteria may be applied for shortlisting. The applicants having higher qualification and merit were to be given preference. Shri Chauhan is not in a position to state whether the guidelines dated 2.11.2010, have been approved by the Executive Council of the University. The matter requires consideration. As an interim measure, we provide that if the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology) in the category of the petitioner have not been held so far, the petitioner will be provisionally allowed to appear in the interview. The result of the selection for the post, however, shall not be declared until further orders of the Court. Put up this matter on 14th February, 2011. In addition to the order to be filed by the petitioner in the University, learned counsel appearing for the University will also inform the University today about this order. Copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the parties today.” 6. Pursuant to the interim order, interviews were held of the shortlisted candidates as well as the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) and the result of the interview was produced before the writ court in a sealed cover. On 28.02.2013, the writ court opened the sealed cover and found that in the interview Dr. Alok Kumar had secured highest 85 marks. The next top three were Dr. Rashmi Ranjan (83 marks) (writ petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013); Dr. Manish Tiwari (81 marks) and Dr. Siya Saran Pandey (80 marks). On 28.02.2013, the writ court opened the sealed cover and found that in the interview Dr. Alok Kumar had secured highest 85 marks. The next top three were Dr. Rashmi Ranjan (83 marks) (writ petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013); Dr. Manish Tiwari (81 marks) and Dr. Siya Saran Pandey (80 marks). After noticing the result so produced, on 28.02.2013 following order was passed: “In compliance of this Court's order dated 6.2.2013 the result of the interview, in which the petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear vide this Court's order dated 28.1.2011, has been produced before us in sealed cover. The result in sealed cover has been opened by the Court and perused. According to the same the Committee has recommended for the appointment of the petitioner who has been placed at Serial No. 1 having obtained 85 marks. A waiting list of three candidates has been prepared which is as follows: 1. Dr. Rashmi Ranjan (83 marks) 2. Dr. Manish Tiwari (81 marks) 3. Dr. Siya Saran Pandey (80 marks) The said result as has been produced before this Court is being returned to Shri V.K. Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent-University. List on 13.3.2013.” 7. While Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 was pending, Dr. Rashmi Ranjan, who had secured 83 marks in the interview and was among the twelve candidates shortlisted, filed Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013, impleading Dr. Alok Kumar as respondent no. 4, seeking following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the interview letter issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 and also the recommendation of the Selection Committee in so far it relates to respondent no. 4 for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology) in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology) in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi by issuing appointment letter in her favour. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (d) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 8. In Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013, the case taken by Dr. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (d) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 8. In Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013, the case taken by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan was that there could be no vested right in respect of the procedure for short-listing therefore, when the University framed guidelines for short-listing and by applying those guidelines shortlisted 12 candidates including her for the interview, Dr. Alok Kumar, who was screened out, had no right to appear in the interview hence his interview letter was liable to be quashed and as she was placed at the top of the list of shortlisted candidates who were interviewed, she was entitled to be appointed. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University, the stand taken was that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had promulgated UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in the Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (for short UGC Regulations 2010), effective from 30.06.2010, which were adopted by the Executive Council of the University vide ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010, therefore, by Corrigendum No. 1, the revised qualifications as prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2010 were notified and the last date of receipt of applications was extended from 20.06.2010 to 21.09.2010. The University stated in the counter affidavit that while adopting the UGC Regulations, 2010, the Executive Council, vide ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010, inter-alia, resolved as under: “RESOLVED STILL FURTHER that the Vice Chancellor be authorized to make the required changes in the short-listing guidelines for faculty position in the University as approved by Executive Council, in the light of the provisions of the new UGC Regulations, 2010.” 10. It was further the case of the University that the earlier shortlisting guidelines were revised in consonance with the qualifications and other eligibility conditions for teaching positions as prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2010 and approved by the Vice-Chancellor, BHU vide his order dated 29.10.2010, which was ratified by the Executive Council vide ECR No. 208, dated November 2, 2010. It was further the case of the University that the earlier shortlisting guidelines were revised in consonance with the qualifications and other eligibility conditions for teaching positions as prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2010 and approved by the Vice-Chancellor, BHU vide his order dated 29.10.2010, which was ratified by the Executive Council vide ECR No. 208, dated November 2, 2010. It was the case of the University that recruitment exercise is a continuous process and has to be done in light of the qualifications prescribed by UGC/MHRD from time to time and the short-listing of candidates for interview was done as per the revised norms of shortlisting approved by the Vice-Chancellor, BHU, ratified and approved by the Executive Council. The University contended that there was a specific clause in the advertisement that mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate to be called for interview and more stringent criteria may be applied for short-listing the candidates to be called for interview and in furtherance thereof, the University adopted/applied the short-listing guidelines hence, the petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) could have no grievance against his exclusion from the list of candidates shortlisted for interview. 11. The learned Single Judge took the view that since by General Instruction No. 2 the eligibility of a candidate had to be tested as on the last date of receipt of application which, in the present case, was 21.09.2010, the short-listing guidelines that came into effect from 02.11.2010 could not be applied and as there existed no dispute as regards the eligibility of Dr. Alok Kumar and that pursuant to the interim order he participated in the interview and secured highest marks in the interview, he was entitled to be appointed. Consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of Dr. Alok Kumar. The operative portion of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar is extracted below: “In view of the above, there is no room to allow the University to apply the new guidelines with respect to the advertisement in question. As to the eligibility of the petitioner under the old guidelines and his suitability for appointment, there is no dispute. The petitioner has obtained the highest marks in the interview conducted by the University under orders of this Court. The first prayer made by the petitioner is declined. As to the eligibility of the petitioner under the old guidelines and his suitability for appointment, there is no dispute. The petitioner has obtained the highest marks in the interview conducted by the University under orders of this Court. The first prayer made by the petitioner is declined. In view of the discussion made above, a mandamus is issued to the University to issue necessary letter of appointment to the petitioner within a period of one month. All consequential effects shall arise accordingly. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.” 12. As the writ petition of Dr. Alok Kumar was allowed, Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013 of Dr. Rashmi Ranjan was dismissed as infructuous. The order dated 02.09.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013 is extracted below: “In view of the order passed in Writ No. 4963 of 2011, the petitioner is worth hearing on the issue of short-listing. However, since he has been awarded marks lesser than the Dr. Alok Kumar, the petitioner, in Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Also, the result of the interview has not been assailed in this writ petition. The writ petition appears to have been rendered infructuous. As such, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.” SUBMISSIONS 13. We have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, for Dr. Rashmi Ranjan; Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Hem Pratap Singh, for the University and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri V.K. Ojha, for Dr. Alok Kumar and have perused the record. 14. Leading the arguments on behalf of the appellants in these three connected appeals, Sri Gajendra Pratap submitted that the learned Single Judge wrongly interpreted General Instruction No. 2 of the advertisement to hold that it places an embargo on adoption of any new guidelines for short-listing of candidates for interview. According to him, the true interpretation of Instruction No. 2 would be that if any criteria is adopted for the purposes of short-listing, whether that criteria has been met by a candidate would be determined on basis of his qualifications as on the last date of receipt of application form. According to him, Instruction No. 2 would not mean that there could be no new short-listing guidelines applied. According to him, Instruction No. 2 would not mean that there could be no new short-listing guidelines applied. He submitted that the purpose of short listing is to reduce the number of candidates as to effectively undertake required steps for selection. More stringent guidelines can therefore be applied for short-listing depending on the number of applicants. In such circumstances, there could be no vested right in any candidate with regard to application of any particular short-listing guidelines. The learned Single Judge fell in error while holding that the short-listing guidelines made effective from 02.11.2010 could not have been applied in a recruitment exercise wherein the last date of receipt of application form was 21.09.2010. He further submitted that the short-listing exercise was carried out after the revised guidelines were adopted and the list of short-listed candidates was published on 11.01.2011. He also submitted that from the counter-affidavit filed by the University it was established that the new short-listing guidelines were necessitated consequent to the UGC Regulations, 2010 which became effective on 30.06.2010 whereas the old guidelines for short-listing were dated 10.04.2010 therefore, the University deemed it appropriate to revise the short-listing guidelines as to give appropriate weightage to the new norms. It was argued that the eligibility criteria was not changed by the University, only the weightage marks for certain qualifications, for the purpose of shortlisting, was changed. 15. The aforesaid submissions were adopted by Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing for the University. 16. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the appellants cited a number of authorities, namely: (a) Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another, (1994) 6 SCC 293 . In this case it was held that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates from amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. (b) B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 362 . In this case, following the earlier decision in Navnit Kumar Potdar’s case (supra), it was held that even if there is no rule providing for shortlisting nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling the applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are large number of eligible candidates, who have applied, and it is not possible to interview all of them. (c) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and Others, dated December 12, 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022 and SLP (c) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020 [2022 SCC Online SC 1706], wherein, in paragraph 32, in respect of the principle that rules of the game in respect of a recruitment exercise must not be changed midway, it was observed that that principle would have no application when the change is with respect to selection process and not to the qualification or eligibility. 17. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there existed a specific stipulation in the advertisement that mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate to be called for interview and a more stringent criteria may be applied for short-listing the candidates to be called for interview therefore, the University had an unqualified right to adopt any rational short-listing procedure for short-listing candidates for the interview; and as there was no challenge laid to the validity of the short-listing guidelines adopted and applied by the University, the writ petition of Dr. Alok Kumar was liable to be dismissed. 18. In addition to above, an alternative submission was also advanced on behalf of the University, which is, that the learned Single Judge could not have issued a direction for appointment of Dr. Alok Kumar was liable to be dismissed. 18. In addition to above, an alternative submission was also advanced on behalf of the University, which is, that the learned Single Judge could not have issued a direction for appointment of Dr. Alok Kumar inasmuch as a selected candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. In support of this submission, a decision of the Apex Court in Shankarshan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 was cited. It was also argued that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is technically defective inasmuch as the first prayer of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) for quashing the order of short-listing has been declined. Having declined the first prayer, the second prayer could not have been accepted inasmuch as the petitioner having been screened out could not have legally participated in interview and his participation in the interview pursuant to an interim-order would not confer any right of appointment because such right would obviously be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. It was thus argued that as the first prayer made in the writ petition was declined, the relief accorded to the writ petitioner was misconceived and for all the reasons above, the appeals deserve to be allowed. 19. Per Contra, Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner being eligible and there is also no dispute that the revised guidelines for short-listing were effective from 02.11.2010 whereas the last date for receipt of application was 21.09.2010. Since Instruction No. 2 clearly specified that eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other short-listing criteria shall be considered as on the last date of the receipt of application, the revised guidelines which became effective from 02.11.2010 could not have been applied. In such circumstances, once it is found that Dr. Alok Kumar had secured highest marks in the interview, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. He, therefore, prayed that all three appeals be dismissed. DISCUSSION 20. In such circumstances, once it is found that Dr. Alok Kumar had secured highest marks in the interview, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. He, therefore, prayed that all three appeals be dismissed. DISCUSSION 20. Having noticed the rival submissions, the relevant pleadings of the parties including the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the issue that arises for our consideration is as to what interpretation is to be accorded to General Instruction No. 2 of the advertisement, which reads as follows: “Eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other shortlisting criteria shall be considered as on the last date of the receipt of application.” 21. It is well settled that any clause in a document or a statute is not to be read in isolation as to find its true meaning. We would have therefore to accord consideration to other relevant provisions in the advertisement which enables the University to adopt short-listing procedure. In the advertisement it has been specifically provided that “Mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview. More stringent criteria may be applied for short-listing the candidates to be called for interview. Applicants having higher qualification and merit will be given preference. For teaching positions short-listing shall be done as per guidelines approved by Executive Council of the University.” 22. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision in the advertisement would reflect that there could be more stringent criteria for shortlisting candidates and for teaching positions short-listing would be done as per the guidelines approved by Executive Council of the University. The word approved in the statement “as per guidelines approved by the Executive Council of the University” is not qualified by use of the word “already”. It simply states that short-listing is to be done as per the guidelines approved by Executive Council of the University. This enables the University to apply those guidelines for short-listing as are approved by Executive Council of the University. In the instant case, the short-listing exercise was carried out on 11.01.2011 on basis of revised guidelines approved by resolution of Executive Council dated 2.11.2010. 23. From the counter-affidavit of the University, it is clear that the earlier guidelines framed on 10.04.2010 warranted a revision consequent to UGC Regulations, 2010 which came into effect on 30.06.2010. In the instant case, the short-listing exercise was carried out on 11.01.2011 on basis of revised guidelines approved by resolution of Executive Council dated 2.11.2010. 23. From the counter-affidavit of the University, it is clear that the earlier guidelines framed on 10.04.2010 warranted a revision consequent to UGC Regulations, 2010 which came into effect on 30.06.2010. The counter-affidavit of the University also indicates that while adopting the UGC Regulations, 2010, the Executive Council, vide ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010, had resolved to authorize the Vice-Chancellor to make required changes in the short-listing guidelines for faculty positions in the University as approved by Executive Council. It is therefore clear that the University had already taken a decision to make changes in the short-listing guidelines before the last date of receipt of application forms, pursuant to the advertisement. This decision was taken by the University on account of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 24. ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010, annexed along with the counter-affidavit, is extracted below: “COPY OF ECR No. 200 DATED AUGUST 31, 2010 ITEM 17: CONSIDERED the orders of the Vice-Chancellor for adoption of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010. The Executive Council was informed that UGC has promulgated the UGC Regulation on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010 that have come into effect from June 30, 2010. These Regulations were placed in the meeting of all the Directors of Institutes, Deans of Faculties and other Senior Officers of the University for discussion on their various provisions. The matter was deliberated at length and it was found that the UGC Regulations inter alia provide that for teachers in the Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, the norms/Regulations of Indian Council of Agriculture Research; for faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; shall apply. Prior to this for the faculty of medicine in norms of MCI, for Dentistry the norms of DCI and for Agriculture and Ayurveda the norms of UGC in the matter of recruitment were applicable. Prior to this for the faculty of medicine in norms of MCI, for Dentistry the norms of DCI and for Agriculture and Ayurveda the norms of UGC in the matter of recruitment were applicable. Accordingly, the Director, Institute of Medical Science has written to the Medical Council of India to clarify whether the norms of MCI or any other norms of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall be applicable in recruitment and promotion of teachers in Medicine. The MCI has informed that norms of MCI for recruitment of Faculty in Medicine shall apply as the MCI gives recognition of various subjects in Medicine in different Medical Colleges. The Executive Council was also apprised that in the Regulation, 2010 for appointment as Assistant Professor exemption from NET has been given to only those who have done their Ph.D in accordance with the UGC Regulation 2009 for award of Ph.D Degree. The Executive Council was also informed that a number of representations against this clause have been received from the candidates who have already done their Ph.D degree before the UGC Regulation, 2009 came into effect and that they are also requesting for grant of exemption from NET. The Vice-Chancellor has written letters to the UGC and MHRD in this regard, requesting for consideration of their cases. It was also informed that since these Regulations are mandatory, the University has adopted these for implementation. In view of this and in view of the urgent necessity of availability of teachers to take up the increased teaching load due to increase in the student strength on implementation of OBC reservation in admissions, as a follow up, the posts that have been advertised earlier have been re-advertised according to the provision of the New UGC Regulations, 2010 by issuing corrigendum to the earlier advertisements with the last date of submission of up-dated application as 21.09.2010. Some members pointed out some discrepancies in the UGC Regulations such as the exemption from NET Clause for appointment as Assistant Professor and also that NET is not required for appointment as Assistant Professor in Management whereas it is conducted by UGC in Management subjects, etc. Some members pointed out some discrepancies in the UGC Regulations such as the exemption from NET Clause for appointment as Assistant Professor and also that NET is not required for appointment as Assistant Professor in Management whereas it is conducted by UGC in Management subjects, etc. RESOLVED that the orders of the Vice-Chancellor for adoption of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010 and the follow up actions taken in this regard be approved. RESOLVED FURTHER that further follow-up actions as required in these Regulations be also initiated. RESOLVED STILL FURTHER that UGC/MHRD may be informed about discrepancies in qualification for Assistant Professor in Management where NET has not been prescribed as essential qualifications notwithstanding the fact that NET is conducted in Management. RESOLVED STILL FURTHER that the Vice-Chancellor be authorized to make the required changes in the short-listing guidelines for faculty position in the University as approved by Executive Council, in the light of the provisions of the new UGC Regulations, 2010. (Emphasis supplied) 25. In furtherance of ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010, the Executive Council, vide ECR No. 208, dated November 2, 2010, resolved as follows: “COPY OF ECR No. 208 DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ITEM 2: CONSIDERED the action taken on the decisions of the Executive Council meeting held on August 31, 2010. While considering the Action Taken Report on the decisions of the Executive Council meeting held on August 31, 2010, the Executive Council noted that vide ECR No. 200 orders of the Vice-Chancellor for adoption of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010 and the follow up actions taken in this regard were approved and the Vice-Chancellor was authorized to make the required changes in the short-listing guidelines for faculty positions in the University as approved by the Executive Council, in the light of the provisions of the new UGC Regulations, 2010. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Rector with Director, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, the Dean, Faculty of Arts, Management Studies and Science as its member to review the existing Guidelines for Short-listing applicants to be called for Interview for teaching positions in the University as per revised qualifications and other eligibility conditions prescribed under UGC Regulations, 2010. The Executive Council also noted that the Committee while reviewing the existing guidelines for short-listing the applications for teaching positions in the University considered the provisions as prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010 particularly awarding scores as per API as prescribed under category-III ‘Research and Academic Contribution’ in the UGC Regulations, 2010 and also the observation of the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27647 of 2010 and then recommended a revised Guidelines for short-listing of applicants to be called for interview for teaching posts in the University. The Executive Council went through the revised Guidelines and found that things have been covered in a very tangible manner. The Vice-Chancellor then informed the members that in the UGC Regulation-2010 NET is an essential requirement for appointment as Assistant Professor in the disciplines of Arts, Humanities, Science, Social Sciences, Law, Commerce and others and exemption from the requirement of NET shall be given to only those who have done their Ph.D in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations 2009 for award of Ph.D degree. The UGC promulgated the above said UGC Regulations 2009 for award of Ph.D degree, in July 2009. Subsequently UGC vide its letter F. No. 1-1/2002(PS) Pt.file-III dated 28 August, 2009 inter-alia communicated that while the UGC is in the process of identifying the candidates of various institutions who have been awarded Ph.D degree in compliance of the provisions of the UGC Regulation 2009 so as to exempt them from the eligibility requirement of NET for recruitment of Assistant Professor, it may take some time hence keeping in view the public interest and interest of students at large the commission has decided as an ad-hoc measure, to leave it to concerned Universities/institutions to decide as to whether the Ph.D degree awarded to various candidates is in compliance of the provision of UGC Regulation 2009 so as to exempt them from the requirement of NET. In the meantime a number of communications were exchanged between UGC and the University on the issue. In the meantime a number of communications were exchanged between UGC and the University on the issue. Now it is learnt that the UGC has identified 10 criteria and those who satisfy 6 out of these 10 criteria in admission to Ph.D degree, their degrees shall be considered compliant to UGC Regulations 2009 for award of Ph.D Degree and hence shall be exempted from the requirement of NET. However formal communication from UGC in this regard has yet not come. After detailed deliberations the Executive Council resolved as under: RESOLVED that the revised guidelines for Short-listing Applicants to be called for interview for Teaching Positions in the University as per revised qualifications and other eligibility conditions prescribed under UGC Regulations, 2010 be approved. RESOLVED FURTHER that the exemption from NET in the appointment of Assistant Professor be given as per the guidelines and directions of the UGC received from time to time. RESOLVED STILL FURTHER that the actions taken on the decisions of the Executive Council meeting held on August 31, 2010 be approved. (Emphasis supplied) 26. Pursuant to the above resolution of Executive Council, the guidelines for short-listing applicants to be called for interview for teaching positions in the University became effective. 27. As the short-listing exercise is to be conducted only after receipt of applications, the short-listing criteria may be fixed after the last date for receipt of application forms, keeping in mind the number of applications received. This position is clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar’s case (supra) and in B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India and Others case (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that where selection is to be made only on the basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been specifically held by the Apex Court that even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. 28. 28. In the instant case we find that there were about 200 odd applicants against a solitary post of Assistant Professor for Sociology. According to the short-listing guidelines, 10 candidates were to be called for interview as against one post. As 3 candidates had obtained equal marks on the basis of short-listing criteria adopted, as many as 12 candidates were short-listed by the University for interview. Notably, the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) was not one of the 12 candidates short-listed. 29. In the writ petition filed by Dr. Alok Kumar, there is no specific averment that if the guidelines earlier applicable, prior to issuance of revised guidelines, were applied he would have been amongst the top 10 candidates short-listed for interview. No doubt in the writ petition it is stated that the revised guidelines should not have been applied for short-listing but there is no statement that under the old guidelines he would have obtained marks higher than the other 10 short-listed candidates. That apart, what is interesting is that the learned Single Judge has declined the first prayer of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) which challenged the short-listing done by the University by applying the short-listing guidelines. Once that is the position, the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) having been screened out was not entitled to any relief as was accorded to him. 30. According to the learned Single Judge, General Instruction No. 2 of the advertisement made it unequivocally clear that the eligibility of the candidates and satisfaction of short-listing criteria shall be considered as on the last date for receipt of application which, according to the learned Single Judge, would mean that no candidate was permitted to acquire any eligibility as may be considered for the purpose of short-listing, if that was acquired after the cut-off date i.e. 21.09.2010. The interpretation of the aforesaid clause to the extent indicated above does not suffer from any infirmity. But, after concluding as above, the learned Single Judge observed: “by way of corollary to the same, the University could not prescribe any further condition for the purposes of short-listing, after the last date to submit the application. The interpretation of the aforesaid clause to the extent indicated above does not suffer from any infirmity. But, after concluding as above, the learned Single Judge observed: “by way of corollary to the same, the University could not prescribe any further condition for the purposes of short-listing, after the last date to submit the application. To allow the University to do that, would be to allow it to violate its own condition set out in the advertisement.” In our view, the afore-quoted portion does not accord correct interpretation to General Instruction No. 2 when read with other part of the advertisement relating to short-listing of applicants for the interview. According to us stipulation that eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other short-listing criteria shall be considered as on the last date for the receipt of application, would mean: (a) that the eligibility of a candidate is to be considered with reference to the last date for receipt of the application, that is any eligibility qualification obtained subsequent to the last date for receipt of application will not be taken into consideration. (b) that whether a candidate had satisfied the short listing criteria would be determined on the basis of his credentials (i.e. qualifications, etc.) as on the last date for receipt of the application. This implies that if weightage is to be accorded to the credentials of a candidate for determining whether he has satisfied the shortlisting criteria, no weightage shall be accorded to such credentials which he did not possess on the last date for receipt of the application. This would thus exclude from consideration any qualification, etc obtained after the last date fixed for receipt of the application. 31. By revising the guidelines for short-listing the candidates for interview, in our view, the University had not changed the rules of the game midway after the selection process had started for two reasons: (a) The general principle prohibiting changing the rules of the game midway would have no application when the change is with respect to selection process and not to the qualification or eligibility (vide paragraph 32 of the decision of the Apex Court dated December 12, 2022, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and Others (supra). (b) Short-listing criteria may be made stringent depending on the number of applicants as to make it convenient for the Selection Body to effectively interview the short-listed candidates (vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another (supra) and B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India and Others (supra). 32. Apart from above, the short-listing guidelines were revised pursuant to a decision taken on 31.08.2010 by the Executive Council as to make it in consonance with UGC Regulations, 2010 which came into effect from 30.06.2010. The decision to revise the short-listing guidelines was taken before the last date fixed for receipt of the application. Thus, for all the reasons above, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition of Dr. Alok Kumar. More so, when the learned Single Judge declined the first prayer of the said petitioner. Consequently, the Special Appeal Nos. 17 of 2023 and 18 of 2023 are entitled to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2011 is hereby set aside and Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 is dismissed. 33. As we have allowed the above two appeals and have dismissed Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar, the Special Appeal No. 19 of 2023 filed by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan is partly allowed and Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013 filed by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan is disposed off by giving liberty to the University to complete the selection/appointment process on the basis of interview marks awarded to the candidates who were short-listed for interview on the basis of revised short-listing guidelines. There shall be no order as to costs.